The 50% number is the slice of the pie that all player compensation is paid from, not a profit sharing agreement. The 50% number is what sets the salary floor and ceiling that determines how much can be spent on players. Currently, 57% of the revenues earned, not profit, revenues, are given to players. That's too high, I agree with the owners.

I would rather see the owners not try to get everything at once, sign a deal, and get the games going. They can amend the deal in 5 years.

This man speaks the truth. The 50% relates to how much of the revenue is spent paying the players, thus having an impact on what the salary cap would be in relation to hockey related revenue. It's all confusing and I think that the media could be explaining it better.

The 50% number is the slice of the pie that all player compensation is paid from, not a profit sharing agreement. The 50% number is what sets the salary floor and ceiling that determines how much can be spent on players. Currently, 57% of the revenues earned, not profit, revenues, are given to players. That's too high, I agree with the owners.

I would rather see the owners not try to get everything at once, sign a deal, and get the games going. They can amend the deal in 5 years.

The bigger issue is not revenue - since the Owners and player have agreed to the 50% thing. The issue is the Owners essentially eliminating free agency by extending how long it takes for a player to become a FA, not allowing RFAs to go to arbitration until they have played more years than under the prior CBA, and limiting contracts to 5 years.

With a 5 year limit on contracts combined with not allowing free agency until a players has 8 years in the league - a team signs a guy to two 5-year contracts. Result - he is not a FA for 10 years. Yes, the player and agent could refuse the second deal and only take a 3 year deal, but most players want the longevity and the guaranteed salary. This offer essentially eliminates free agency for any player under 28-30 years of age depending on when they first sign. Does that sound fair? Yes, the players can go to the KHL or play in the minors somewhere. Do you want the KHL to have the NHL's best players, because the Owners are trying to eliminate free agency?? I don't.

I do like the 5 year contract limit, because that would eliminate the Kovy nonsense and the crap the Wild pulled this off-season. IMO, the players should agree to the 5 year contract thing, while the owners should give by keeping arbitration and FA the way it currently stands. That's give on both sides. Of course, the owners have not budged AT ALL on the contract issues.

Maybe I'm talking out my ass here, but all free agents should be RFA's. The team scouted, drafted and developed the player and then they'll walk away for nothing? I'm not saying the compensation has to be draft choices, it could be a combination of players or draft picks as agreed upon by the teams within a window--say a one week window--or an automatic five first rounders from one team and some other penalty for the other team (to avoid them just sitting on their hands waiting for the 5 first rounders) if no agreement is reached, but UFA's only drive up contracts which drive up ticket prices which makes it harder for smaller markets to compete with or without a salary cap. As long as there are ways to circumvent the cap, who cares about it? How about you can't offer an RFA more than a certain percentage above their previous contract and the matching team can match in terms of length of contract but not in dollar amount?

Maybe I'm talking out my ass here, but all free agents should be RFA's. The team scouted, drafted and developed the player and then they'll walk away for nothing? I'm not saying the compensation has to be draft choices, it could be a combination of players or draft picks as agreed upon by the teams within a window--say a one week window--or an automatic five first rounders from one team and some other penalty for the other team (to avoid them just sitting on their hands waiting for the 5 first rounders) if no agreement is reached, but UFA's only drive up contracts which drive up ticket prices which makes it harder for smaller markets to compete with or without a salary cap. As long as there are ways to circumvent the cap, who cares about it? How about you can't offer an RFA more than a certain percentage above their previous contract and the matching team can match in terms of length of contract but not in dollar amount?

Bettman's have the owners and players talk directly is just another ploy. As one of the players stated, if it is the same four owners (referring to the ones trying to jam the contract thing down the player's throats), there is no point in even talking to them. Part of the problem with this "negotiation" is it does not require the participation of even half the owners. Does that sound right to anyone? Shouldn't at least half the owners be involved??

Heck, these are some of the owners who are not even at the table and just relying on being kept informed by Bettman and his team:1) Canadiens - Geoff Molson2) Maple Leafs - Bell and Rogers3) NY Rangers - The Dolans

That's right. One of the owners (Leopold) who handed out two 13-year mega contracts this off-season is now negotiating against even paying them in full and preventing any other owner from ever offering them. Shouldn't the major money makers - Rangers, Leafs, and Canadiens - be required to be physically present for at least some of the negotiations?

Does anyone seriously wonder why nothing happened with the mediators given that level of nonsense?

I'll believe it when my shit turns purple and tastes like rainbow sherbert.

_________________2009-2010 LGB Official Sponsor of Roman Polak2010-2011 LGB Official Sponsor of the Brad Boyes 2011 2nd round draft pick.2011-2012 LGB Official Sponsor of "The Russian" Evgeny Grachev2013 LGB Official Sponsor of David Perron 2013-2014 LGB Official Sponsor of Jay Bouwmeester

Leonsis and Leopold out of the conversation.Leafs and Penguins owner in the conversation.Interesting note - Andy MacDonald, David Backes, and former Blue BJ Crombeen are all involved in the current negotiation.

Guess what - two of the dickhead owners, Bettman and Fehr out and this is on the table:

The NHL proposed more make-whole/transition money, to ease the players' drop from 57 percent of hockey-related revenue to 50. The league is now reportedly at $300 million (with $50 million going toward pensions) -- about the midpoint between its previous proposal ($211 million) and the union's ($393 million).

The league bent on some contracting rights, keeping arbitration and free-agency eligibility the same. But the league reportedly continued to insist that contracts not vary by more than five percent from year to year, to stop back-diving, cap-circumventing deals, instead of adopting a union proposal that would recapture a team's salary cap advantage if a player retired before his contract ran out. The league continued to insist on a five-year contract limit, while allowing teams to re-sign their own players for seven years.

The league also reportedly proposed a 10-year collective bargaining agreement, with an opt-out after eight years. The players had been proposing a five-year deal.

Hmmmm... Does this sound familiar? Keep FA rights the same, limit contract offers and improve the "make-whole" offer? Yes, the owners finally caved on the FA thing - which was an insult to the players from the beginning. Not surprisingly when an owner who is one of the top 3 money makers (Leafs) in the league is involved, things suddenly change. It is insulting to fans that Buttman refused to cave on the issues mentioned in this paragraph.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 47 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum

www.letsgoblues.com is a fan site. The opinions expressed on this site in no way reflect the opinions of the St. Louis Blues hockey club or the National Hockey League. All images and articles displayed on this site remain property of the respective owners unless otherwise noted.